Another pretty large verdict. Often these verdicts make the news because of their size. Please notice that there is usually an offer to settle for the insurance policy limits or some other number. In many states if there is an offer to settle and the defendant and the insurance company refuse that offer, then if the verdict is larger than then offer or the policy limits then the insurance company may have to pay the higher number (the verdict). This is designed to encourage settlements.
A Philadelphia jury on Wednesday awarded $12 million to a woman with terminal breast cancer in her suit against two doctors for allegedly failing to diagnose the disease before it had progressed to an incurable stage.
Specifically here is what the lawsuit alleges. "Lawsuit Alleges" What that basically means is "Here is what the plaintiff claims happened to her."
The suit alleged that, due to Sutherlin's history of breast problems, including a bloody discharge from her nipple that required a prior biopsy, she was not a proper candidate for a "screening" test in the mobile unit and instead should have undergone a "diagnostic" test.
Magilner testified in his deposition that Sutherlin's questionnaire, which was completed by Fox Chase technicians, made no mention of Sutherlin's surgical history, nor the fact that she had undergone breast reduction surgery in 2000. The suit alleged that Magilner's report erroneously described a "dilated duct" that was "unchanged" and suggested a follow-up test in one year.
But Jones argued in court papers that a comparison of Sutherlin's 2001 and 2003 mammograms showed that the report from the first test made no mention of a dilated duct.
"In short, Dr. Magilner missed a clear opportunity to note the change in the left ductal prominence, which is where Angela Sutherlin ultimately developed a palpable lump and breast cancer was found," Jones wrote in her pretrial memo.
The suit alleged that when Sutherlin had another mammogram in March 2004 at the Albert Einstein Medical Center, another doctor, Susan Summerton, interpreted the films and noted "several small nodular densities," but found that they "remain stable compared to prior studies."
But the suit alleged that no nodular densities had been noted in the prior report, and that Summerton therefore should not have labeled the finding as benign.
